The Real Story Behind That Shady Planned Parenthood Video
A ‘damning’ video of a Planned Parenthood employee has pro-lifers calling for the organization’s termination.
Pro-lifers are already calling it the end of Planned Parenthood. An undercover video released early this morning by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), an offshoot of the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank, claims to show Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola openly discussing the sale of fetal body parts with actors posing as prospective buyers:
“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” Nucatola says at one point, before describing how providers can conduct abortions in order to preserve fetal tissue for transportation.
Later, when the actors ask her about partnering with PPFA directly as a national organization rather than working with regional Planned Parenthood affiliates, Nucatola replies, “[A]t the national office we have a litigation and law department, which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now.”
It’s a video that appears damning or, at least, it is certainly presented as if it is, complete with interstitial captions summarizing U.S. legislation surrounding human fetal tissue. Some right-wing outlets are already suggesting that Planned Parenthood is violating federal law and making ominous reference to the penal code, which includes a 10-year prison sentence and/or a $500,000 fine. Social media has exploded with accusations that Planned Parenthood is selling fetal tissue for a profit.
But although Nucatola’s comments raise questions about the acquisition of fetal tissue and the ethical issues surrounding its collection, the transfer of human fetal tissue is not illegal in the United States. Women undergoing abortions sometimes choose to donate fetal tissue for scientific research and abortion providers do not facilitate these donations without their explicit consent.
The law cited by the Center for Medical Progress—42 U.S. Code § 289g—2—prohibits the acquisition and transferring of human fetal tissue “for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.” A definition within the code notes that “‘valuable consideration’ does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”
In other words, transferring human fetal tissue is legal in the United States provided that payments are for processing and transportation costs.
The donation of aborted human fetal tissue may come as a shock to a public unfamiliar with the practice but it is, in fact, a longstanding one.
When asked whether or not the video shows Nucatola discussing activities that are indeed criminal, David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress told The Daily Beast, “Planned Parenthood does not incur any of these costs,” referring to the “reasonable payments” in 289g-2. Daleiden further claims that one clinic he’s aware of “receive[s] payments for each specimen” despite partnering with a third-party that handles the transportation. He did not immediately provide documentation for either claim.
In a statement to The Daily Beast, Eric Ferrero, Vice President of Communications for PPFA, maintained that Planned Parenthood’s practices surrounding human fetal tissue are legal:
“In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.”
Ferrero claims that the Center for Medical Progress a “well-funded group” that has been “established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services,” further noting that similar accusations have been used on abortion providers in the past.
The donation of aborted human fetal tissue may come as a shock to a public unfamiliar with the practice but it is, in fact, a longstanding one. According to the American Society for Cell Biology, scientists have been researching human fetal tissue since the 1930s, with aborted tissue playing a part in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s development of the rubella and varicella vaccines in the 1960s (PDF). Ronald Reagan put a hold on using fetal tissue for transplants in 1988 while other forms of fetal tissue research continued and Bill Clinton subsequently lifted Reagan’s moratorium in 1993.
As of this writing, all content on the Center for Medical Progress website pertains to the undercover video and the project of which it was a part. The first blog post for the nonprofit was published on July 6 and refers to CMP as “a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances,” but the only project listed on the website so far is a “30-month-long investigative journalism study…documenting how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted babies.”
Louisiana governor and presidential hopeful Bobby Jindal has already announced that the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals will be investigating Planned Parenthood’s “alleged evil and illegal activity” in response to the viral video. In a statement, the governor said that Nucatola was “discussing the systematic harvesting and trafficking of human body parts,” practices which he called “shocking and gruesome.”
You mean, using fetal tissue for scientific research. Currently there is no evidence that Planned Parenthood is selling body parts on some sort of black market.
generalgrog wrote: It's sad how you guys can just hand waive...selling aborted baby parts.... That is the 'Real Story"
Yeah nevermind...
GG
And I honestly don't see a problem. As long as the woman has given consent, it's just "Oh-no, their selling babies!" freak-out BS. People sell their bodies to science, donate organs, ect. It's not like it's anything new. Only this time it's a fetus. Because fetus are more important than humans apparently.
Do you have anything to offer but hyperbole? It's not like women are getting pregnant for the purpose of profiteering from their abortions, which is what you seem to be edging yourself towards suggesting.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Do you have anything to offer but hyperbole? It's not like women are getting pregnant for the purpose of profiteering from their abortions, which is what you seem to be edging yourself towards suggesting.
Planned parenthood is a making money off of it..aren't they?
GG
generalgrog wrote: No I mean selling the hearts, livers, and lungs of the babies they kill for prophet.
Should be called planned abortionhood...not planned parenthood.
GG
Seriously? It's not like they go grab random people off the street and force them to have abortions. And why shouldn't they sell them? It's a waste to just burn the fetuses for something like that.
Also, I think you meant profit. It rather changes the meaning otherwise.
generalgrog wrote: It's sad how you guys can just hand waive...selling aborted baby parts....
That is the 'Real Story"
You're confusing 'hand waving' with 'fact finding'... But congratulations on joining the Simpsons-esque angry mob that immediately leaped up all over the internet at this extremely jaundiced piece of flamebait propaganda...
Please continue to enjoy using this ridiculous video, that includes parts over 10 years old, stuck together with paperclips, bubblegum and ill will, to fulfill some conspiracy driven by your religious conviction at the expense of your common sense...
Howard A Treesong wrote: Do you have anything to offer but hyperbole? It's not like women are getting pregnant for the purpose of profiteering from their abortions, which is what you seem to be edging yourself towards suggesting.
Planned parenthood is a making money off of it..aren't they?
GG
Doesn't appear to be the case. Just some fear-mongering by a Non-profit formed solely to discredit Planned Parenthood. At the very least, these accusations are coming from a very biased source.
generalgrog wrote: It's sad how you guys can just hand waive...selling aborted baby parts....
That is the 'Real Story"
You're confusing 'hand waving' with 'fact finding'... But congratulations on joining the Simpsons-esque angry mob that immediately leaped up all over the internet at this extremely jaundiced piece of flamebait propaganda...
Please continue to enjoy using this ridiculous video, that includes parts over 10 years old, stuck together with paperclips, bubblegum and ill will, to fulfill some conspiracy driven by your religious conviction at the expense of your common sense...
Good night Gracie...
So your perfectly fine with Mrs.Lector taking a swig of her wine then casually talking about how she takes care to not damage the babies heart or lungs when she kills the baby? I mean after all those lungs and livers are worth $30 to$100 bucks each?
Howard A Treesong wrote: Do you have anything to offer but hyperbole? It's not like women are getting pregnant for the purpose of profiteering from their abortions, which is what you seem to be edging yourself towards suggesting.
Planned parenthood is a making money off of it..aren't they?
GG
Well they appear to cover their costs involved in the donation, they aren't turning it into actual profit for themselves or the donor. If you think this is some big money spinner for them I think you're very wrong.
generalgrog wrote: It's sad how you guys can just hand waive...selling aborted baby parts....
That is the 'Real Story"
You're confusing 'hand waving' with 'fact finding'... But congratulations on joining the Simpsons-esque angry mob that immediately leaped up all over the internet at this extremely jaundiced piece of flamebait propaganda...
Please continue to enjoy using this ridiculous video, that includes parts over 10 years old, stuck together with paperclips, bubblegum and ill will, to fulfill some conspiracy driven by your religious conviction at the expense of your common sense...
Good night Gracie...
So your perfectly fine with Mrs.Lector taking a swig of her wine then casually talking about how she takes care to not damage the babies heart or lungs when she kills the baby? I mean after all those lungs and livers are worth $30 to$100 bucks each?
GG
I think you should build an argument around demonstrable fact rather than shock appeals to emotion.
generalgrog wrote: It's sad how you guys can just hand waive...selling aborted baby parts....
That is the 'Real Story"
You're confusing 'hand waving' with 'fact finding'... But congratulations on joining the Simpsons-esque angry mob that immediately leaped up all over the internet at this extremely jaundiced piece of flamebait propaganda...
Please continue to enjoy using this ridiculous video, that includes parts over 10 years old, stuck together with paperclips, bubblegum and ill will, to fulfill some conspiracy driven by your religious conviction at the expense of your common sense...
Good night Gracie...
So your perfectly fine with Mrs.Lector taking a swig of her wine then casually talking about how she takes care to not damage the babies heart or lungs when she kills the baby? I mean after all those lungs and livers are worth $30 to$100 bucks each?
GG
Yes. If it's going to happen anyway, why not use it to help researchers at the same time.
generalgrog wrote: It's sad how you guys can just hand waive...selling aborted baby parts....
That is the 'Real Story"
You're confusing 'hand waving' with 'fact finding'... But congratulations on joining the Simpsons-esque angry mob that immediately leaped up all over the internet at this extremely jaundiced piece of flamebait propaganda...
Please continue to enjoy using this ridiculous video, that includes parts over 10 years old, stuck together with paperclips, bubblegum and ill will, to fulfill some conspiracy driven by your religious conviction at the expense of your common sense...
Good night Gracie...
So your perfectly fine with Mrs.Lector taking a swig of her wine then casually talking about how she takes care to not damage the babies heart or lungs when she kills the baby? I mean after all those lungs and livers are worth $30 to$100 bucks each?
GG
I am perfectly fine with somebody drinking wine (!?) whilst they talk about how they do a routine surgery whilst not making messy and un-necessary incisions in order to terminate a foetus.
Thirty bucks is surprisingly cheap for any human tissue sample.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans are seizing on a video purportedly showing a top Planned Parenthood executive discussing the transfer of aborted fetal tissue.
"This latest news is tragic and outrageous," GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina said in a Facebook post linking to the video.
"This isn't about 'choice.' It's about profiting on the death of the unborn while telling women it's about empowerment," Fiorina said.
"This video is beyond disturbing," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) tweeted.
The undercover video, which surfaced Tuesday morning, shows a woman identified as Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood Federation of America's senior director of medical services, describing in detail procedures to retrieve body parts.
"A lot of people want intact hearts these days, because they're looking for specific nodes," the woman says in the video released by The Center for Medical Progress, a self-described group of citizen journalists monitoring medical ethics. The video was reportedly recorded in July, 2014 by people posing as representatives from a fetal tissue procurement company.
"Yesterday was the first time she said people wanted lungs," the woman continues. "Some people want lower extremities too, which, that's simple. I mean that's easy."
"I don't know what they're doing with it. I guess they want muscle," the woman adds. "[W]e've been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that."
In a statement, Planned Parenthood described the video as "heavily edited" and said it "falsely portrays Planned Parenthood’s participation in tissue donation programs that support lifesaving scientific research."
“In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases," Eric Ferrero, the group's vice president of communications, said in the statement.
"Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does -- with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards," Ferrero continued.
"There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field," he added.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, another Republican presidential candidate, announced Tuesday afternoon he would be directing his state's Department of Health and Hospitals, with the FBI, to launch an investigation into Planned Parenthood's "alleged criminal activity."
"Today’s video of a Planned Parenthood official discussing the systematic harvesting and trafficking of human body parts is shocking and gruesome," Jindal said in a statement.
"This same organization is seeking to open an abortion clinic in New Orleans," Jindal said, suggesting a license would be withheld until the investigation is complete.
--------------------------------------
generalgrog wrote: No I mean selling the hearts, livers, and lungs of the babies they kill for prophet.
Epic.
Also, this reminds me of a nice movie I saw.
I do not really understand people that put dead bodies into their mouth and then eat them, but well, apparently it allows people to stay young, so that is worth it, I guess.
The point isn't the fact that it was an edited video with old news footage...the point was the casual , and cold nature that Dr. Hannibal Lector drinks her Chianti and eats here fava beans, while discussing selling parts of a human being.
The point isn't the fact that it was an edited video with old news footage...the point was the casual , and cold nature that Dr. Hannibal Lector drinks her Chianti and eats here fava beans, while discussing selling parts of a human being.
GG
Shocker - medical professionals who deal with abortion on a day to day basis are not moved on a deep emotional level when they discuss the sale of tissue for medical research.
The point isn't the fact that it was an edited video with old news footage...the point was the casual , and cold nature that Dr. Hannibal Lector drinks her Chianti and eats here fava beans, while discussing selling parts of a human being.
GG
That's called an appeal to emotion. It's not working.
Here's the post you missed-
The Real Story Behind That Shady Planned Parenthood Video
A ‘damning’ video of a Planned Parenthood employee has pro-lifers calling for the organization’s termination.
Pro-lifers are already calling it the end of Planned Parenthood. An undercover video released early this morning by the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), an offshoot of the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank, claims to show Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) Senior Director of Medical Services Dr. Deborah Nucatola openly discussing the sale of fetal body parts with actors posing as prospective buyers:
“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” Nucatola says at one point, before describing how providers can conduct abortions in order to preserve fetal tissue for transportation.
Later, when the actors ask her about partnering with PPFA directly as a national organization rather than working with regional Planned Parenthood affiliates, Nucatola replies, “[A]t the national office we have a litigation and law department, which just really doesn’t want us to be the middle people for this issue right now.”
It’s a video that appears damning or, at least, it is certainly presented as if it is, complete with interstitial captions summarizing U.S. legislation surrounding human fetal tissue. Some right-wing outlets are already suggesting that Planned Parenthood is violating federal law and making ominous reference to the penal code, which includes a 10-year prison sentence and/or a $500,000 fine. Social media has exploded with accusations that Planned Parenthood is selling fetal tissue for a profit.
But although Nucatola’s comments raise questions about the acquisition of fetal tissue and the ethical issues surrounding its collection, the transfer of human fetal tissue is not illegal in the United States. Women undergoing abortions sometimes choose to donate fetal tissue for scientific research and abortion providers do not facilitate these donations without their explicit consent.
The law cited by the Center for Medical Progress—42 U.S. Code § 289g—2—prohibits the acquisition and transferring of human fetal tissue “for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.” A definition within the code notes that “‘valuable consideration’ does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.”
In other words, transferring human fetal tissue is legal in the United States provided that payments are for processing and transportation costs.
The donation of aborted human fetal tissue may come as a shock to a public unfamiliar with the practice but it is, in fact, a longstanding one.
When asked whether or not the video shows Nucatola discussing activities that are indeed criminal, David Daleiden of the Center for Medical Progress told The Daily Beast, “Planned Parenthood does not incur any of these costs,” referring to the “reasonable payments” in 289g-2. Daleiden further claims that one clinic he’s aware of “receive[s] payments for each specimen” despite partnering with a third-party that handles the transportation. He did not immediately provide documentation for either claim.
In a statement to The Daily Beast, Eric Ferrero, Vice President of Communications for PPFA, maintained that Planned Parenthood’s practices surrounding human fetal tissue are legal:
“In health care, patients sometimes want to donate tissue to scientific research that can help lead to medical breakthroughs, such as treatments and cures for serious diseases. Women at Planned Parenthood who have abortions are no different. At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health care provider does—with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards. There is no financial benefit for tissue donation for either the patient or for Planned Parenthood. In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.”
Ferrero claims that the Center for Medical Progress a “well-funded group” that has been “established for the purpose of damaging Planned Parenthood’s mission and services,” further noting that similar accusations have been used on abortion providers in the past.
The donation of aborted human fetal tissue may come as a shock to a public unfamiliar with the practice but it is, in fact, a longstanding one. According to the American Society for Cell Biology, scientists have been researching human fetal tissue since the 1930s, with aborted tissue playing a part in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s development of the rubella and varicella vaccines in the 1960s (PDF). Ronald Reagan put a hold on using fetal tissue for transplants in 1988 while other forms of fetal tissue research continued and Bill Clinton subsequently lifted Reagan’s moratorium in 1993.
As of this writing, all content on the Center for Medical Progress website pertains to the undercover video and the project of which it was a part. The first blog post for the nonprofit was published on July 6 and refers to CMP as “a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances,” but the only project listed on the website so far is a “30-month-long investigative journalism study…documenting how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted babies.”
Louisiana governor and presidential hopeful Bobby Jindal has already announced that the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals will be investigating Planned Parenthood’s “alleged evil and illegal activity” in response to the viral video. In a statement, the governor said that Nucatola was “discussing the systematic harvesting and trafficking of human body parts,” practices which he called “shocking and gruesome.”
Since I'm all out of foreskin jokes..... The abortion is going to happen anyway why not utilise the remains instead of just sending it to the medical waste dump? I thought we were living in the age of recycling? I see no difference to this than donating my body parts when I die. I do not envy the people who have to get the organs out, I mean emptying the vacuum is bad enough, I'd hate to think what it would be like at the abortion factory.
I think all these chump republicans need to realise it's just utilising a resource that would otherwise be waste, it is not like planned parenthood goes out on the streets kidnapping pregnant women.
42 U.S.C. 289g-2 states:
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000
42 U.S.C. 289g-2 states:
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000
42 U.S.C. 289g-2 states:
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000
This can't be spun.
But what if they never sold it in the first place? I believe that is the issue here- whether they just covered to cost of transportation or outright sold them.
42 U.S.C. 289g-2 states:
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000
This can't be spun.
But what if they never sold it in the first place? I believe that is the issue here- whether they just covered to cost of transportation or outright sold them.
At worst it's illegal.
At best it has an incredibly shaky ethical base. Which Herr Doktor alludes to throughout her conversation in relation to their legal team.
42 U.S.C. 289g-2 states:
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000
This can't be spun.
But what if they never sold it in the first place? I believe that is the issue here- whether they just covered to cost of transportation or outright sold them.
At worst it's illegal.
At best it has an incredibly shaky ethical base. Which Herr Doktor alludes to throughout her conversation in relation to their legal team.
I suppose a lot of it depends upon whether or not you think using bodies(specifically the bodies of unborn children) for scientific research is ethical or not. Personally as long as the parents have signed off on it I have no problem with it, assuming it advances our medical and biological sciences/community.
42 U.S.C. 289g-2 states:
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000
This can't be spun.
But what if they never sold it in the first place? I believe that is the issue here- whether they just covered to cost of transportation or outright sold them.
Irrelevant.
The statute states:
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
That video... all we have is that PP is selling these tissues... asking for donations instead, wasn't explicitly asked.
Actually, looking into it further, it might actually be legal for research purposes.
(c) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes
It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—
(1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
(2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
Still might be illegal, but there is definitely a case.
That being said, I'm not sure why it is illegal. Probably to do the "their killing babies for stem cell research" nuttery that went on.
42 U.S.C. 289g-2 states:
The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000
This can't be spun.
But what if they never sold it in the first place? I believe that is the issue here- whether they just covered to cost of transportation or outright sold them.
Irrelevant.
The statute states:
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
That video... all we have is that PP is selling these tissues... asking for donations instead, wasn't explicitly asked.
At worst, PP need some investigating.
I've gotten a little lost here-
Are we discussing whether or not it's illegal to use remains for research, or to sell them? I was under the impression it's okay for research, but not to sell them.
According to the first site I go to which responds to a copy paste of "The sale or purchase of human fetal tissue a federal felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $500,000", this is actually technically legal.
Planned Parenthood makes two key admissions in their statement today: 1) Aborted fetal parts are harvested at their clinics, and 2) money is exchanged in connection with this.
They also tell several lies: 1) That proper consent is obtained from patients, 2) that Planned Parenthood does not make money off the body parts, and 3) that everything is legal.
The Center for Medical Progress has obtained an advertisement to Planned Parenthood clinics from StemExpress, LLC, one of the major purchasers of Planned Parenthood’s aborted fetal tissue. This flyer advertises 4 different times the financial benefit that Planned Parenthood clinics can receive from supplying fetal tissue, with the words: “Financially Profitable,” “Financial Profits,” “financial benefit to your clinic,” “fiscal growth of your own clinic.” The advertisement carries an endorsement from Planned Parenthood Medical Director Dr. Dorothy Furgerson.
CMP is kinda hard for me to take seriously- they're obviously a bit biased.
Also I should point out they didn't specifically say the bodies are sold for money. Just that money is exchanged for it.
The proper consent issue I'd like to have more elaboration on; as well as what exactly they do make money on, if they're not directly making money off of selling the tissues; and what specifically are they doing is illegal. They phrased it all very strangely- as if to guide the reader to make certain conclusions, but leaving it slightly ambiguous to avoid being called out on false accusations.
Daleiden at the Center for Medical Progress issued a follow-up statement today claiming that Planned Parenthood doesn’t get informed consent from its patients to donate fetal tissue, although he doesn’t offer any proof:
Co'tor Shas wrote: Actually, looking into it further, it might actually be legal for research purposes.
(c) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes
It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—
(1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
(2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
Still might be illegal, but there is definitely a case.
That being said, I'm not sure why it is illegal. Probably to do the "their killing babies for stem cell research" nuttery that went on.
I think that it would probably be legal from (c) standpoint, as I seriously doubt that the women getting abortions in a PP clinic, got pregnant or "gestated for research purposes"... I'm no lawyer, but I'd bet money that's the argument Perry Mason and Ben Matlock would go with.
generalgrog wrote: The point isn't the fact that it was an edited video with old news footage...the point was the casual , and cold nature that Dr. Hannibal Lector drinks her Chianti and eats here fava beans, while discussing selling parts of a human being.
Who gives a about how casual the discussion is? It's a blob of dead tissue with less "humanity" than the cockroaches you kill without the slightest regret. I fail to see why any discussion of the subject needs to be accompanied by tragic music and buckets of tears.
Sinful Hero wrote: CMP is kinda hard for me to take seriously- they're obviously a bit biased.
It's an anti-abortion, non-profit group. k?
Also I should point out they didn't specifically say the bodies are sold for money. Just that money is exchanged for it.
I watched about 90% of that 3hr video... it's quite chilling when she's non-chalantely on harvesting... actual... organs and which are in "demand".
The proper consent issue I'd like to have more elaboration on; as well as what exactly they do make money on, if they're not directly making money off of selling the tissues; and what specifically are they doing is illegal. They phrased it all very strangely- as if to guide the reader to make certain conclusions, but leaving it slightly ambiguous to avoid being called out on false accusations.
generalgrog wrote: The point isn't the fact that it was an edited video with old news footage...the point was the casual , and cold nature that Dr. Hannibal Lector drinks her Chianti and eats here fava beans, while discussing selling parts of a human being.
Who gives a about how casual the discussion is? It's a blob of dead tissue with less "humanity" than the cockroaches you kill without the slightest regret. I fail to see why any discussion of the subject needs to be accompanied by tragic music and buckets of tears.
So... harvesting fetal hearts, livers and lungs has less 'humanity' than the cockroaches I kill?
Sinful Hero wrote: CMP is kinda hard for me to take seriously- they're obviously a bit biased.
It's an anti-abortion, non-profit group. k?
Also I should point out they didn't specifically say the bodies are sold for money. Just that money is exchanged for it.
I watched about 90% of that 3hr video... it's quite chilling when she's non-chalantely on harvesting... actual... organs and which are in "demand".
The proper consent issue I'd like to have more elaboration on; as well as what exactly they do make money on, if they're not directly making money off of selling the tissues; and what specifically are they doing is illegal. They phrased it all very strangely- as if to guide the reader to make certain conclusions, but leaving it slightly ambiguous to avoid being called out on false accusations.
Planned Parenthood does a lot of good things, like providing free or low-cost contraceptives to people who need them. I don't know why some conservatives have such a problem with this. Somebody who wants contraception has a way to get it, and people who don't want contraception get butthurt. It's a stupid thing to fight over. If you don't want contraceptives then don't go to Planned Parenthood. Really, the people who don't want contraceptives have it way easier than people who do, because to not get contraceptives you literally have to do nothing.
Not going to Planned Parenthood is tied for easiest thing ever right beside not doing anything else.
I would assume certain tissues would be more in demand than others...for research.
Reasonable asummption.
As for the flyer- it looks to me that they're asking clinics to partner with them? What are the issues you find there?
Uh... they're not a 'not for profit' or 'university' or what have you...
It's a private, multi-million company that (from the flyer & co webpage), advocates the many benefits of using StemExpress to distribute harvested human organs, and explicitly highlights the financial rewards that come from aborting healthy unborn babies and then harvesting their bodies for organs and other tissues.
When they're throwing phrases like: financial benefit to your clinic... fiscally rewards clinics... contribute to fiscal growth...
Add that to Dr. Nucatola's candid camera expose on selling harvested organs...
The argument that PP is simply donating these tissues at cost is causing my BS meter to go splody.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hordini wrote: Planned Parenthood does a lot of good things, like providing free or low-cost contraceptives to people who need them. I don't know why some conservatives have such a problem with this. Somebody who wants contraception has a way to get it, and people who don't want contraception get butthurt. It's a stupid thing to fight over. If you don't want contraceptives then don't go to Planned Parenthood. Really, the people who don't want contraceptives have it way easier than people who do, because to not get contraceptives you literally have to do nothing.
Not going to Planned Parenthood is tied for easiest thing ever right beside not doing anything else.
whembly wrote: So... harvesting fetal hearts, livers and lungs has less 'humanity' than the cockroaches I kill?
It has no brain and therefore no humanity. And even if it did have those things it's already dead and can't possibly suffer any more harm. The cockroach, on the other hand, has a functioning nervous system and arguably a higher (though still incredibly low) level of the things that define what it means to be a person. The fact that the lump of dead tissue has human DNA matters about as much as the fact that cancer cells have human DNA.
whembly wrote: So... harvesting fetal hearts, livers and lungs has less 'humanity' than the cockroaches I kill?
It has no brain and therefore no humanity. The cockroach, on the other hand, has a functioning nervous system and arguably a higher (though still incredibly low) level of the things that define what it means to be a person. The fact that the lump of dead tissue has human DNA matters about as much as the fact that cancer cells have human DNA.
I watched about 90% of that 3hr video... it's quite chilling when she's non-chalantely on harvesting... actual... organs and which are in "demand".
Why? I imagine those who harvest organs from dead bodies have much the same demeanor when talking about that part of their job. Some parts are going to be wanted more than others. Police, paramedics and medical staff all talk about cadavers like they are nothing when the average person has a large emotionally based response, i think it's disingenuous to claim that since she is desensitised as she deals with said parts every day that it is chilling, it is just normal for her.
Then again I supposed she is an evil butcher who delights in slicing up the kiddies and using their remains to pad out her retirement fund /s
I watched about 90% of that 3hr video... it's quite chilling when she's non-chalantely on harvesting... actual... organs and which are in "demand".
Why? I imagine those who harvest organs from dead bodies have much the same demeanor when talking about that part of their job. Some parts are going to be wanted more than others. Police, paramedics and medical staff all talk about cadavers like they are nothing when the average person has a large emotionally based response, i think it's disingenuous to claim that since she is desensitised as she deals with said parts every day that it is chilling, it is just normal for her.
Then again I supposed she is an evil butcher who delights in slicing up the kiddies and using their remains to pad out her retirement fund /s
I think we're all getting stuck in the emotional muck relating to any abortion related topics.
The issue I want to stress is that, this Dr. appears to actively circumvent laws regarding fetal harvestings and profiteering.
The issue I want to stress is that, this Dr. appears to actively circumvent laws regarding fetal harvestings and profiteering.
If the bit of law that Co'tor posted is accurate, then she appears to not be breaking any laws, unless somehow you can prove that there was some conspiracy that all those women at that particular clinic were "gestating for research purposes"
I watched about 90% of that 3hr video... it's quite chilling when she's non-chalantely on harvesting... actual... organs and which are in "demand".
Why? I imagine those who harvest organs from dead bodies have much the same demeanor when talking about that part of their job. Some parts are going to be wanted more than others. Police, paramedics and medical staff all talk about cadavers like they are nothing when the average person has a large emotionally based response, i think it's disingenuous to claim that since she is desensitised as she deals with said parts every day that it is chilling, it is just normal for her.
Then again I supposed she is an evil butcher who delights in slicing up the kiddies and using their remains to pad out her retirement fund /s
I think we're all getting stuck in the emotional muck relating to any abortion related topics.
The issue I want to stress is that, this Dr. appears to actively circumvent laws regarding fetal harvestings and profiteering.
Appears or has done something illegal? At the moment all we have is an edited video from a potentially biased source alleging that PP is selling fetal body parts. They haven't shown any hard evidence.
Of course I have, because it isn't human in any meaningful sense. The real issue is that the anti-abortion side has over-humanized a tiny lump of tissue with no functioning brain in an effort to portray this as cute healthy babies being slaughtered for their organs (or just being slaughtered in general). And that image, while effective at motivating people to vote against abortion, simply has nothing to do with reality.
The issue I want to stress is that, this Dr. appears to actively circumvent laws regarding fetal harvestings and profiteering.
If the bit of law that Co'tor posted is accurate, then she appears to not be breaking any laws, unless somehow you can prove that there was some conspiracy that all those women at that particular clinic were "gestating for research purposes"
(a) Purchase of tissue
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
(b) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation
It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—
(1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
(2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
(3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
(c) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes
It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—
(1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
(2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
(d) Criminal penalties for violations
(1) In general
Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall be fined in accordance with title 18, subject to paragraph (2), or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
(2) Penalties applicable to persons receiving consideration
With respect to the imposition of a fine under paragraph (1), if the person involved violates subsection (a) or (b)(3), a fine shall be imposed in an amount not less than twice the amount of the valuable consideration received.
(e) Definitions
For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “human fetal tissue” has the meaning given such term in section 289g–1 (g) of this title.
(2) The term “interstate commerce” has the meaning given such term in section 321 (b) of title 21.
(3) The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.
Hordini wrote: Planned Parenthood does a lot of good things, like providing free or low-cost contraceptives to people who need them. I don't know why some conservatives have such a problem with this. Somebody who wants contraception has a way to get it, and people who don't want contraception get butthurt. It's a stupid thing to fight over. If you don't want contraceptives then don't go to Planned Parenthood. Really, the people who don't want contraceptives have it way easier than people who do, because to not get contraceptives you literally have to do nothing.
Not going to Planned Parenthood is tied for easiest thing ever right beside not doing anything else.
This has nothing to do with contraceptives.
Zero. Nada.
Okay. Abortions then. Planned Parenthood provides them. They seem to be strongly disliked by some for this reason.
Hordini wrote: Planned Parenthood does a lot of good things, like providing free or low-cost contraceptives to people who need them. I don't know why some conservatives have such a problem with this. Somebody who wants contraception has a way to get it, and people who don't want contraception get butthurt. It's a stupid thing to fight over. If you don't want contraceptives then don't go to Planned Parenthood. Really, the people who don't want contraceptives have it way easier than people who do, because to not get contraceptives you literally have to do nothing.
Not going to Planned Parenthood is tied for easiest thing ever right beside not doing anything else.
This has nothing to do with contraceptives.
Zero. Nada.
Okay. Abortions then. Planned Parenthood provides them. They seem to be strongly disliked by some for this reason.
Hordini wrote: Planned Parenthood does a lot of good things, like providing free or low-cost contraceptives to people who need them. I don't know why some conservatives have such a problem with this. Somebody who wants contraception has a way to get it, and people who don't want contraception get butthurt. It's a stupid thing to fight over. If you don't want contraceptives then don't go to Planned Parenthood. Really, the people who don't want contraceptives have it way easier than people who do, because to not get contraceptives you literally have to do nothing.
Not going to Planned Parenthood is tied for easiest thing ever right beside not doing anything else.
This has nothing to do with contraceptives.
Zero. Nada.
Okay. Abortions then. Planned Parenthood provides them. They seem to be strongly disliked by some for this reason.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I see obviously no problem for it. This isnt a living being.
Agreed, otherwise you get the awkward situation of all those women who have naturally ocourring 1st trimester miscarriages being up on manslaughter charges.
Actually, it's exactly as accurate as yours because that's where I got it from.
Now, I'm no lawyer, so I'm not 100% certain how that works, but it looks to my unskilled eye to be legal for research purposes.
But that again begs the question, why is it illegal in the first place? I really don't understand.
A couple of the important bits, separated for emphasis. You can't pick the law apart to twist it, you have to view it in its entirety to see where it is (or isn't) being broken.
Now, since the whole thing is a few posts up, let me show you the parts that make this legal:
It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person
See that part? You can't get fetal tissue to implant into someone else for any reason. This is because President Bush outlawed stem cell research during his Presidency, which is why the US is lagging behind in such sciences.
solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue;
This means the fetus was intentionally conceived and aborted in order to engage in this transaction. If the aborted pregnancy came about through other means, then the law is not violated. This is outlawing the "farming" of such tissues. That is not what's happening here.
The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.
See this part? Profit motive has to be present. If you're breaking even, then there's no violation of the law. If all you're doing is recouping the costs? No violation of the law.
Further? The fourth sentence ends with "and". So not only does everything listed before that have to be true, but so does at least 1 of the points following it.
generalgrog wrote: The point isn't the fact that it was an edited video with old news footage...the point was the casual , and cold nature that Dr. Hannibal Lector drinks her Chianti and eats here fava beans, while discussing selling parts of a human being.
Who gives a about how casual the discussion is? It's a blob of dead tissue with less "humanity" than the cockroaches you kill without the slightest regret. I fail to see why any discussion of the subject needs to be accompanied by tragic music and buckets of tears.
I don't have a horse in this race, but this is where I would normally interject something like "what is your standard of humanity that cockroaches can posses greater amounts of it than potential human beings?" What definition of 'humanity' describes itself as 'having a central nervous system'? I must be crazy because this is the kind of definition I use for humanity :
[hyoo-man-i-tee or, often, yoo-]
Synonyms
Examples
Word Origin
noun, plural humanities.
1.
all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind.
2.
the quality or condition of being human; human nature.
3.
the quality of being humane; kindness; benevolence.
4.
the humanities.
the study of classical languages and classical literature.
the Latin and Greek classics as a field of study.
literature, philosophy, art, etc., as distinguished from the natural sciences.
the study of literature, philosophy, art, etc.
And the human race, collectively : kind of fits a fetus moreso than a cockroach. But of course, since you only post when you know you are right, I am interested in your philosophical proofs on how a cockroach - which exhibits no humanity whatsoever - exhibits more humanity than a potential human being.
generalgrog wrote: The point isn't the fact that it was an edited video with old news footage...the point was the casual , and cold nature that Dr. Hannibal Lector drinks her Chianti and eats here fava beans, while discussing selling parts of a human being.
Who gives a about how casual the discussion is? It's a blob of dead tissue with less "humanity" than the cockroaches you kill without the slightest regret. I fail to see why any discussion of the subject needs to be accompanied by tragic music and buckets of tears.
To clarify the above picture, that is probably the first time something has left me speechless on Dakka.
Anyways. What happens next with this? I'll admit I'm actually confused, as I tend to normally steer away from this issue. Will an investigation be launched? Fines?
Having worked with human tissue before, it is one of the most tightly regulated areas of science around. Anyone who even vaguely looks like they have not filled in the right paperwork, or have done something in line with the law will be squished with a great weight falling from a massive height.
And regaining costs is not gaining from the sale of tissues.
Nor is discussing human tissue, medical procedures or anything else dispassionately a crime other than seemingly in the court of appeal to emotion...
Anyone dealing with death, or whatever, at a pretty regular basis is going to seem pretty damn casual about it to most other people.
I have seen and handled more dead bodies than most here on dakka, with possibly our deployed military folks seeing more of them. I have held and touched a 22 week old fetus in a plastic bucket, I have scooped brains off the street and picked severed body parts out of vehicles. I have bagged up a 16 year old kid that got killed in a car crash and while we were bagging him his cell phone kept on ringing with "mom" on the screen. I have stood next to people as they did with panic on their face and I have found people dead and decomposing. I looked at a face that was able to watch me while we were doing CPR and were perfuming his brain, only to watch those eyes go away when we were never able to restart his heart. And during all these things me and all other people involved responded just like the lady eating her dinner while talking about dead babies. I have helped roll over dead bodies for cleaning while eating an apple, ate potluck dinners while wearing scrubs covered in blood, had lunch and talked about our next paper right after touching the hands of the 22 week gestation fetus, got right back to playing CoD with the guys at the station after bagging the dead kid while his mom was trying to call him.
I have one particular call that feths with me every year when the anniversary of it rolls around, the rest are just memories. If you think that she is some bad person because she was able to eat dinner and drink wine while talking about dead babies then you probably should have some bad opinions about pretty much every single person working in the medical field. Death has long ago lost any kind of novelty for us, and talking about it in a casual way like you would discuss last nights football game around the water cooler at the office is normal for us. A dead body is just another dead body, no matter the age, and tissue is tissue, which can be used for good things. I have been known to look at my watch while eating a sandwich only to go "crap, gotta water the eyeballs" while waiting on the tissue guys to show up to harvest my patient. I'm sorry if I disappointed people by not having a silent alarm on my watch, excused myself from the company of my peers, made a quick trip to the chapel downstairs to ritually prepare myself for the solem duty of opening a dead guys eyes to place some drops on his eyeballs to preserve the gift of tissue his family provided to others, only to finish with lighting a candle at the bedside. Truth be told watering his eyeballs was just one more thing during my busy shift and he was probably person #137 that I have seen dead during my career.
Medical people don't approach death the same way as normal people, im sure the military guys here can relate. What it doesn't mean is that we don't care.
generalgrog wrote: It's sad how you guys can just hand waive...selling aborted baby parts....
That is the 'Real Story"
You're confusing 'hand waving' with 'fact finding'... But congratulations on joining the Simpsons-esque angry mob that immediately leaped up all over the internet at this extremely jaundiced piece of flamebait propaganda...
Please continue to enjoy using this ridiculous video, that includes parts over 10 years old, stuck together with paperclips, bubblegum and ill will, to fulfill some conspiracy driven by your religious conviction at the expense of your common sense...
Good night Gracie...
"Tonight on Fox News" were my thoughts on his replies.
(a) Purchase of tissue
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
(b) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation
It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—
(1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
(2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
(3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
(c) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes
It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—
(1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
(2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
(d) Criminal penalties for violations
(1) In general
Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall be fined in accordance with title 18, subject to paragraph (2), or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
(2) Penalties applicable to persons receiving consideration
With respect to the imposition of a fine under paragraph (1), if the person involved violates subsection (a) or (b)(3), a fine shall be imposed in an amount not less than twice the amount of the valuable consideration received.
(e) Definitions
For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “human fetal tissue” has the meaning given such term in section 289g–1 (g) of this title.
(2) The term “interstate commerce” has the meaning given such term in section 321 (b) of title 21.
(3) The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.
hotsauceman1 wrote: I see obviously no problem for it. This isnt a living being.
It was though, and arguably if the organs are still usable, it is a whole bunch of small living organism . Just like a carrot is a human being.
d-usa wrote: Anyone dealing with death, or whatever, at a pretty regular basis is going to seem pretty damn casual about it to most other people.
I have seen and handled more dead bodies than most here on dakka, with possibly our deployed military folks seeing more of them. I have held and touched a 22 week old fetus in a plastic bucket, I have scooped brains off the street and picked severed body parts out of vehicles. I have bagged up a 16 year old kid that got killed in a car crash and while we were bagging him his cell phone kept on ringing with "mom" on the screen. I have stood next to people as they did with panic on their face and I have found people dead and decomposing. I looked at a face that was able to watch me while we were doing CPR and were perfuming his brain, only to watch those eyes go away when we were never able to restart his heart. And during all these things me and all other people involved responded just like the lady eating her dinner while talking about dead babies. I have helped roll over dead bodies for cleaning while eating an apple, ate potluck dinners while wearing scrubs covered in blood, had lunch and talked about our next paper right after touching the hands of the 22 week gestation fetus, got right back to playing CoD with the guys at the station after bagging the dead kid while his mom was trying to call him.
Damn, what is your job? Seems like fun. I mean, you get to play CoD with your colleagues during working hours!
Just a variety of jobs. Main job is RN, both in the ER and medical/surgical units. Used to work for the ambulance service as well and spend 5 years volunteering for a fire department.
Wow, so many forget Planned Parenthood has other mandates than just abortions right?
Male infertility issues are another.....dat's right, helping those who want to make kids be able to make them, so they check fertility problems out for married couples, making sure she can have a kid, and that he can shoot live rounds not blanks.
Also counseling for parenthood, making sure people are ready on many levels to be able to have, love, support and raise kids who have never had kids before.
As for anything else, look up what else Planned Parenthood does.
(a) Purchase of tissue
It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration if the transfer affects interstate commerce.
(b) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue as directed donation for use in transplantation
It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue for the purpose of transplantation of such tissue into another person if the donation affects interstate commerce, the tissue will be or is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion, and—
(1) the donation will be or is made pursuant to a promise to the donating individual that the donated tissue will be transplanted into a recipient specified by such individual;
(2) the donated tissue will be transplanted into a relative of the donating individual; or
(3) the person who solicits or knowingly acquires, receives, or accepts the donation has provided valuable consideration for the costs associated with such abortion.
(c) Solicitation or acceptance of tissue from fetuses gestated for research purposes
It shall be unlawful for any person or entity involved or engaged in interstate commerce to—
(1) solicit or knowingly acquire, receive, or accept a donation of human fetal tissue knowing that a human pregnancy was deliberately initiated to provide such tissue; or
(2) knowingly acquire, receive, or accept tissue or cells obtained from a human embryo or fetus that was gestated in the uterus of a nonhuman animal.
(d) Criminal penalties for violations
(1) In general
Any person who violates subsection (a), (b), or (c) shall be fined in accordance with title 18, subject to paragraph (2), or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both.
(2) Penalties applicable to persons receiving consideration
With respect to the imposition of a fine under paragraph (1), if the person involved violates subsection (a) or (b)(3), a fine shall be imposed in an amount not less than twice the amount of the valuable consideration received.
(e) Definitions
For purposes of this section:
(1) The term “human fetal tissue” has the meaning given such term in section 289g–1 (g) of this title.
(2) The term “interstate commerce” has the meaning given such term in section 321 (b) of title 21.
(3) The term “valuable consideration” does not include reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue.
Interesting you chose not to highlight (e)(3).
Okay... and?
If you got a bone to pick with me, spit it out yo.
It's clear I was trying to drive the topic to any possible profit motives.
When you're editing out 8 minutes of a conversation and trying to pretend that the figures they quote for one thing are not in fact from a different thing mentioned in the missing time, ..well.....
I looked at this thread last night and thought it was a joke. Turns out three pages of comments later still has me thinking that, just in a different way.
When you're editing out 8 minutes of a conversation and trying to pretend that the figures they quote for one thing are not in fact from a different thing mentioned in the missing time, ..well.....
Whats editing out 8 minutes when PP are editing 37,739,520 minutes of life!!!!!ONE!
With the bit about certain parts 'being in demand' surely that's to be expected? If research is being performed on foetal heart abnormalities, for example, then surely that company will want to examine hearts rather than toes?
d-usa wrote: Anyone dealing with death, or whatever, at a pretty regular basis is going to seem pretty damn casual about it to most other people.
*snipped for brevity*
Medical people don't approach death the same way as normal people, im sure the military guys here can relate. What it doesn't mean is that we don't care.
When you're editing out 8 minutes of a conversation and trying to pretend that the figures they quote for one thing are not in fact from a different thing mentioned in the missing time, ..well.....
I am shocked, shocked that someone might try to use a disingenuously edited video to cater to their particular bias against Planned Parenthood! /sarcasm
Great, that James O'Keefe donkey cave has followers.
generalgrog wrote: The point isn't the fact that it was an edited video with old news footage...the point was the casual , and cold nature that Dr. Hannibal Lector drinks her Chianti and eats here fava beans, while discussing selling parts of a human being.
Who gives a about how casual the discussion is? It's a blob of dead tissue with less "humanity" than the cockroaches you kill without the slightest regret. I fail to see why any discussion of the subject needs to be accompanied by tragic music and buckets of tears.
Its not a blob of dead tissue, its a blob of living tissue that is then killed. And that blob of tissue happens to be a human being, at its earliest life stages.
"Science" I'm afraid doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a human being, beyond confirming that it contains human DNA and is indeed living cells. Beyond that is where ethics and morality take over. We know this living creature has human DNA and is merely the first stage of a very long line of changes that occur in human development. Ergo: its human.
Some common arguments for why its "Ok" to kill a baby while its still in the womb and why they're total bunk.
1) It can't live on its own. True, but babies can't live on their own long after they are born either. They are totally helpless and completely depend on the care of adults for the good first decade of their lives.
2) It has no brain activity. Well, the CNS appears quite early on in pregnancy, and by the time this particular stage being discussed here happens where it has organs viable for transactions it most definitely has a functioning nervous system. Plus I see no reason why this should really matter, its alive and its human. Nothing about that cares if you have a CNS or not. The brain also doesn't finish developing till the early 20s, so using brain development is obviously not an important function for determining if something is human or not.
3) People say its the mothers choice. Sure it is, and that choice was made before the baby was conceived. Condoms are so cheap people are giving them away for free people. If you don't want to get pregnant, don't get pregnant in the first place. Also, nobody talks about the baby's choice, we have established that it is a human being after all. To all who support abortion, what if your mother had decided you were just a burdensome piece of trash she didn't want? I'm sure you wouldn't like that. Plus there are many families who are incapable of having children who will be willing to adopt. Babies can be surrendered to many safe locations no questions asked, such as fire stations.
I agree that contraceptives should be available to people who want them. If you get past that point there is zero excuse. You can't terminate a human life because you were careless, especially when there are plenty of services for you to give that child away to someone who wants it and will actually care for it.
Abortions should only be performed if it is a life saving procedure that is 100% medically necessary.
Scrabb wrote: As a pro-life advocate I do not approve of the doctoring of videos or sensationalism.
As a pro-life advocate i do approve of the doctoring of wombs.The "it's alive in the first trimester " people need to look at how often miscarriage happens in that period. 10-25% is not a small number of recognised pregnancies . feths sake, the number would be exponentially larger in unrecognised pregnancy.
Abortion waste should be used, especially if it can be used to benefit the rest of humanity.
Also thanx d-usa for backing up what i said earlier, my sister is a nurse and her offhand manner in dealing with corpses /body parts always spins me out - thanx for applying that knowledge to this discussion.
THe whole premise of this discussion seems to be "that evil woman so calmly talking about killing babies when she should be nurturing, is making money off selling baby (if it's a baby, it's manslaughter to accidentally kill it) parts for profit!"
feth me dead, are you serious?, or just not thinking of the ramifications of your views?
Scrabb wrote: As a pro-life advocate I do not approve of the doctoring of videos or sensationalism.
As a pro-life advocate i do approve of the doctoring of wombs.The "it's alive in the first trimester " people need to look at how often miscarriage happens in that period. 10-25% is not a small number of recognised pregnancies . feths sake, the number would be exponentially larger in unrecognised pregnancy.
Sure, its a tragedy that so many pregnancies are naturally aborted like that, but its not anyones fault. Its no different that someone dying of old age or slipping and breaking their neck.
When its deliberately performed, thats when it becomes murder.
When you're editing out 8 minutes of a conversation and trying to pretend that the figures they quote for one thing are not in fact from a different thing mentioned in the missing time, ..well.....
A right-wing organization releases a heavily-edited tape to mislead the perpetually-angry rabble? Fetch my fainting couch, this is unprecedented.
Surely this will be the time they realize they've been lied to by hacks to serve their agenda!
If it is alive, then all miscarriages are manslaughter or murder 3 or whatever over there. Miscarriages happen a huge amount of time in the intrinsic stage of pregnancy . Are women culpable for accidentally aborting a "living being" as you put it?
if not, why not?
if it is a living being then surely it is afforded the rights that the rest of us have.
deliberately? IN my country we have a crime that is used to prosecute those who kill people through misadventure/ negligence. What you are saying fits the bill.
If it is alive, then all miscarriages are manslaughter or murder 3 or whatever over there. Miscarriages happen a huge amount of time in the intrinsic stage of pregnancy . Are women culpable for accidentally aborting a "living being" as you put it?
if not, why not?
if it is a living being then surely it is afforded the rights that the rest of us have.
deliberately? IN my country we have a crime that is used to prosecute those who kill people through misadventure/ negligence. What you are saying fits the bill.
you're failing criminal law. Its not a crime if no act is committed.
"Science" I'm afraid doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a human being, beyond confirming that it contains human DNA and is indeed living cells. Beyond that is where ethics and morality take over. We know this living creature has human DNA and is merely the first stage of a very long line of changes that occur in human development. Ergo: its human.
...
Also, nobody talks about the baby's choice, we have established that it is a human being after all.
The only thing you've established is that you think your personal interpretation of ethics should be forced on every living being on this planet. Are you God?
"Science" I'm afraid doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a human being, beyond confirming that it contains human DNA and is indeed living cells. Beyond that is where ethics and morality take over. We know this living creature has human DNA and is merely the first stage of a very long line of changes that occur in human development. Ergo: its human.
...
Also, nobody talks about the baby's choice, we have established that it is a human being after all.
The only thing you've established is that you think your personal interpretation of ethics should be forced on every living being on this planet. Are you God?
Are there are any ANY accepted codes of ethics where its accepted to simply kill a human being who has committed no crimes and done no wrong?
If not, then nobody is forcing any code of ethics on anyone, simply extending existing codes to where they should be.
If it is alive, then all miscarriages are manslaughter or murder 3 or whatever over there. Miscarriages happen a huge amount of time in the intrinsic stage of pregnancy . Are women culpable for accidentally aborting a "living being" as you put it?
if not, why not?
if it is a living being then surely it is afforded the rights that the rest of us have.
deliberately? IN my country we have a crime that is used to prosecute those who kill people through misadventure/ negligence. What you are saying fits the bill.
you're failing criminal law. Its not a crime if no act is committed.
If it is alive, then all miscarriages are manslaughter or murder 3 or whatever over there. Miscarriages happen a huge amount of time in the intrinsic stage of pregnancy . Are women culpable for accidentally aborting a "living being" as you put it?
if not, why not?
if it is a living being then surely it is afforded the rights that the rest of us have.
deliberately? IN my country we have a crime that is used to prosecute those who kill people through misadventure/ negligence. What you are saying fits the bill.
you're failing criminal law. Its not a crime if no act is committed.
"Science" I'm afraid doesn't get to decide what is and isn't a human being, beyond confirming that it contains human DNA and is indeed living cells. Beyond that is where ethics and morality take over. We know this living creature has human DNA and is merely the first stage of a very long line of changes that occur in human development. Ergo: its human.
...
Also, nobody talks about the baby's choice, we have established that it is a human being after all.
The only thing you've established is that you think your personal interpretation of ethics should be forced on every living being on this planet. Are you God?
Actually thats the SCOTUS view too. And yes I am Dog.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
That still requires an act, albeit one that unintentionally causes murder. In a miscarriage, no act is committed.
Indeed. I'll repeat. You don't seem to have an understanding of criminal law.
That still requires an act, albeit one that unintentionally causes murder. In a miscarriage, no act is committed.
WITHOUT INTENT!
Yes, and also without act.
If I leave a rake in the yard, I am not intending for someone to walk by and step on it and get whacked in the face. But I still committed the act which caused that event to occur. Again, poor understanding of criminal law as Frazzled said.
With a miscarriage, no act is committed which causes the abortion.
IF you argue a fetus is living in the first trimester I cannot see how you can argue that it being aborted naturally is anything but involuntary manslaughter.
Bullockist wrote: IF you argue a fetus is living in the first trimester I cannot see how you can argue that it being aborted naturally is anything but involuntary manslaughter.
Grey Templar wrote: Are there are any ANY accepted codes of ethics where its accepted to simply kill a human being who has committed no crimes and done no wrong?
Grey Templar wrote: Are there are any ANY accepted codes of ethics where its accepted to simply kill a human being who has committed no crimes and done no wrong?
I should note I don't approve of Euthanasia either, but that at least has the consent of the person getting killed. In the case of abortion no consent is given by the victim.
You could have a kidney that can save my life and by refusing to donate it you could ensure my death. But autonomy over your own body is paramount, even if your medical decisions can cause the death of someone else. We could force you to participate in medical trials as well, that could save the lives of many many people, but again autonomy over your body is a long established legal concept
But honestly, isn't this the same thread we locked a few days ago?
Grey Templar wrote: I said accepted codes. I assure you, the Spartan's practices would NOT fly today.
Well, abortion flies today.
Killing a human being is not a generally accepted thing today. We have issues killing horrific criminals. How is it the same people are ok with killing a baby? With no more justification than "I don't want it".
The problem is that people have become ok with it because they've successfully dehumanized the baby by saying its not actually a human, when it most certainly by all objective measures is a human. Its the same pseudo-science that Hitler used to justify killing all the unwanted "sub-humans" by arguing they weren't really human at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: but again autonomy over your body is a long established legal concept
Sure, but the little baby inside you isn't part of your body.
skyth wrote: A woman has full rights to remove a parasite in her body for any reason she chooses.
More dehumanization I see.
Is a 6 month old baby a parasite too? its going to be leaching off your checkbook for the better part of 2 decades. Should you be allowed to just kill it?
My body isn't part of your body either. Which is why I'm not legally allowed to take your organs or tissues to keep myself alive. And the same reason you can stop donating blood anytime you want and the government can't take it from you no matter how rare your blood type may be and how many lives it saves. And why a police officer can't push you into your burning house to save your neighbor.
The child is one body, and it has the right to live on its own as soon as it is able to do so, hence why most reasonable people oppose late term abortion. The mother is one body, and she has the right to make medical decisions regarding her own body. She can't be forced to he an incubator the same way that you cannot be forced to donate your organs.
It's only complicated when you ignore law and inject emotions.
d-usa wrote: My body isn't part of your body either. Which is why I'm not legally allowed to take your organs of tissues to keep myself alive. And the same reason you can stop donating blood anytime you want and the government can't take it from you no matter how rare your blood type may be and how many lives it saves. And why a police officer can't push you into your burning house to save your neighbor.
The child is one body, and it has the right to live on its own as soon as it is able to do so, hence why most reasonable people oppose late term abortion. The mother is one body, and she has the right to make medical decisions regarding her own body. She can't be forced to he an incubator the same way that you cannot be forced to donate your organs.
It's only complicated when you ignore law and inject emotions.
Except a baby can't live on its own, even after its been naturally birthed at 9 months. It is totally helpless for a good couple years, and still can't provide for itself for at least a decade. And even then most people's children are total dependents for nearly 20 years, sometimes more.
Mentally disabled people will be completely dependent on others their entire lives. I suppose its ok just to kill them too since they're just leeches.
skyth wrote: A woman has full rights to remove a parasite in her body for any reason she chooses.
That is the argument. The difficult is that the parasite is a separate human being with legal rights as such.
Don't think of it like a parasite. think of it as a relative that crashed the house and just won't take the hint that its time to go.
Grey Templar wrote: [
Mentally disabled people will be completely dependent on others their entire lives. I suppose its ok just to kill them too since they're just leeches.
No no, the word you're looking for, I believe, is parasite.
And you cannot be forced to donate your kidney to your child the day after it is born, or when it is 6, or 45, or the grand children.
Unless somehow "feth, I have to feed my children" became "Feth, I have to cut off my own flesh to feed to my children".
Really, your argument doesn't make sense. I point out that you cannot be forced to give me your kidney even if I die without it, and your rebuttal is that a child can't feed itself and you have to buy it food?
skyth wrote: A woman has full rights to remove a parasite in her body for any reason she chooses.
That is the argument. The difficult is that the parasite is a separate human being with legal rights as such.
Don't think of it like a parasite. think of it as a relative that crashed the house and just won't take the hint that its time to go.
It's not a separate human body yet though, which is probably the reason I didn't get to claim her on my tax return the year my wife started to be pregnant...
d-usa wrote: And you cannot be forced to donate your kidney to your child the day after it is born, or when it is 6, or 45, or the grand children.
Unless somehow "feth, I have to feed my children" became "Feth, I have to cut off my own flesh to feed to my children".
Really, your argument doesn't make sense. I point out that you cannot be forced to give me your kidney even if I die without it, and your rebuttal is that a child can't feed itself and you have to buy it food?
Except you are providing that unborn child with is food, shelter, and protection, via your bloodstream and consuming more nutrients than normal. Something parents are sort of required to provide their currently born children, otherwise we wouldn't have laws regarding child neglect.
You aren't cutting off your own flesh. You are simply eating more.
skyth wrote: A woman has full rights to remove a parasite in her body for any reason she chooses.
That is the argument. The difficult is that the parasite is a separate human being with legal rights as such.
Don't think of it like a parasite. think of it as a relative that crashed the house and just won't take the hint that its time to go.
Human or not i cant un think of it as a parasite now..
That analogy is bad and you should feel bad for typing it.
If you refuse to understand such a simple legal concept and realize that having to feed someone is different than loosing autonomy over your own body then there is really no point to continue this.
A court can order you to pay child support, they cannot order you to donate your kidney to your child. Simple stuff really.
d-usa wrote: That analogy is bad and you should feel bad for typing it.
If you refuse to understand such a simple legal concept and realize that having to feed someone is different than loosing autonomy over your own body then there is really no point to continue this.
A court can order you to pay child support, they cannot order you to donate your kidney to your child. Simple stuff really.
Nobody is donating or losing organs. You are simply feeding a child. Slightly differently than if the child was outside your body, but its still just feeding it and providing shelter.
You gave away your right to not have your womb occupied when you didn't use a condom or any of the other numerous and cheap/free methods of preventing conception. But there is an out. You can wait for the child to be born and then you can give it up for adoption.
You can even arrange the adoption ahead of time. Thats how I got adopted.
d-usa wrote: That analogy is bad and you should feel bad for typing it.
If you refuse to understand such a simple legal concept and realize that having to feed someone is different than loosing autonomy over your own body then there is really no point to continue this.
A court can order you to pay child support, they cannot order you to donate your kidney to your child. Simple stuff really.
It's maps like this (I think this may be out of date) really highlights the major problem we have with it:
There's an utter lack of consistency within the law. Viability is so utterly ambiguous. And the timing is all over the place.
It's an issue that makes me waffle, TBH. Personally, I wouldn't ever do it. We didn't get any of the early stage tests for our daughter because it never entered the equation. I judge people that have them, for sure. But at the same time, I don't want a bunch of unfit, unwilling people to have children. Adoption is an option, obviously, but we already have such a large pool of children in foster care and in group homes that I hate seeing that number rise.
At the same time, I hate how much of a disposable society we are, and it kills me that so many are that cavalier with the life of these unborn children.
d-usa wrote: That analogy is bad and you should feel bad for typing it.
If you refuse to understand such a simple legal concept and realize that having to feed someone is different than loosing autonomy over your own body then there is really no point to continue this.
skyth wrote: A woman has full rights to remove a parasite in her body for any reason she chooses.
That is the argument. The difficult is that the parasite is a separate human being with legal rights as such.
Don't think of it like a parasite. think of it as a relative that crashed the house and just won't take the hint that its time to go.
Human or not i cant un think of it as a parasite now..
You have no idea. Wait until they are teenagers. They eat all your food, suck all the money out of your wallet, wreck your car, and leave all the lights on!
You cannot be forced to use your body for something against your will. A father doesn't loose the right not to have to donate a kidney just because he could have used birth control and then he wouldn't have a kid that needs a kidney.
Your body cannot be used for medical trials against your will just because you have AIDS, even if you could have prevented it by wearing a condom. Your body cannot be used for medical trials against your will just because you have cancer and you could have prevented it by not smoking.
Your body is yours, it doesn't matter if you have no kids, a kid inside of you, or a kid outside of you. Simple stuff really.
d-usa wrote: That analogy is bad and you should feel bad for typing it.
If you refuse to understand such a simple legal concept and realize that having to feed someone is different than loosing autonomy over your own body then there is really no point to continue this.
At some point, you're the problem
How right you are. Speaking of which, I need to feed my two year old before she starts biting me...
d-usa wrote: You cannot be forced to use your body for something against your will.
Correct, and refusal to use a contraceptive indicates you consent at the time. You can't retroactively decide against it.
@GreyTemplar, what is your position regarding the so-called 'morning after' pill?
I think any contraceptive which terminates an already fertilized embryo is wrong to use or have available.
Fortunately, there are many many other options which don't terminate fertilized embryos, instead preventing fertilization from occurring. So really there is no excuse.
d-usa wrote: You cannot be forced to use your body for something against your will.
Correct, and refusal to use a contraceptive indicates you consent at the time. You can't retroactively decide against it.
@GreyTemplar, what is your position regarding the so-called 'morning after' pill?
I think any contraceptive which terminates an already fertilized embryo is wrong to use or have available.
Fortunately, there are many many other options which don't terminate fertilized embryos. So really there is no excuse.
Right I've sat here and read this tripe you keep on spewing about not using contraceptives and then being forced to have a child. Have you even considered that maybe it isn't as black and white as she just didn't use any? What if she was raped? What if she was abused and talked into performing acts she didn't want to? What if she had passed out at a party and got passed around the guys there? In the last she wouldn't necessarily know till it was too late. In the abuse example she'd probably have been cut off as soon as the guy found out she was pregnant and as such was of little use to him. Should she still be forced to carry the child, go through all the pain and suffering involved, just so you can get a warm fuzzy feeling that you saved a child?
d-usa wrote: That analogy is bad and you should feel bad for typing it.
If you refuse to understand such a simple legal concept and realize that having to feed someone is different than loosing autonomy over your own body then there is really no point to continue this.
A court can order you to pay child support, they cannot order you to donate your kidney to your child. Simple stuff really.
It's maps like this (I think this may be out of date) really highlights the major problem we have with it:
There's an utter lack of consistency within the law. Viability is so utterly ambiguous. And the timing is all over the place.
It's an issue that makes me waffle, TBH. Personally, I wouldn't ever do it. We didn't get any of the early stage tests for our daughter because it never entered the equation. I judge people that have them, for sure. But at the same time, I don't want a bunch of unfit, unwilling people to have children. Adoption is an option, obviously, but we already have such a large pool of children in foster care and in group homes that I hate seeing that number rise.
At the same time, I hate how much of a disposable society we are, and it kills me that so many are that cavalier with the life of these unborn children.
We were the same and didn't do any testing because we didn't even want to be faced with the choice. I want to be the bigger person and pretend that we obviously would never have aborted, but I didnt even want to be put in that spot.
I am pro-choice, but I wish more people would choose life. I think we probably would save more unborn children if we took all the resources spend on abortion laws and defending them over and over again only to have them struck down and simply spend that money on helping people choose life (through improved welfare, improved adoption laws, etc). Let the gays adopt, stop with the binary "they are using abortion as birth control, they are only having kids for welfare" talk, stop treating women like ignorant breeding machines who are too stupid to use a conform and stop acting like women aren't making difficult decisions that will haunt many of them for the rest of their lives. If society as a whole was more pro-life instead of simply pro-birth we might make more of an impact.
I am pro-choice, but I wish more people would choose life. I think we probably would save more unborn children if we took all the resources spend on abortion laws and defending them over and over again only to have them struck down and simply spend that money on helping people choose life (through improved welfare, improved adoption laws, etc).
It should definitely be cheaper to adopt a child in the US than to adopt one from another country. That part has never, ever made sense to me.
Sadly, I think we could pump as much money as we wanted to into more education programs, but I don't think its ever going to result in more accountability or break the young mother cycle that we see for large portions of the poor, lower-literacy population. Maybe (hopefully) I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.
Not having a kid is literally the easiest thing to do. My wife and I had regular sex for 7 years before we decided we were ready to have a kid. She was pregnant two months later.
stop acting like women aren't making difficult decisions that will haunt many of them for the rest of their lives.
I think abortion is a special case where the woman's self determination over her body is the most important thing. What we have now, is the best fit for balancing the rights to terminate a pregnancy and with destroying living matter. The mother is in the unique position of carrying the child in her body. Only she is allowed the choice to terminate, it's not murder because it's not a person. But it still has value as life or potential for life, which is why it's wrong for other people to terminate it, you can't force an abortion on someone, the government can't and neither can a disagreeable partner or family member, and it's specifically a crime to kill the foetus (say by an action that injures the woman). The right to abort lies in the hands of the woman whose body carries the child places her in a special position to make such a decision. It'll never be easy for those either side of the debate but I feel the balance of where we hold a foetus as 'life' in law is probably the best it can be for reflecting the rights of all involved. I think pro-life attempts to remove the right to abort infringes too far upon the right of a woman to determine the future of her own body. And in the other direction men cannot ever be allowed to demand an abortion to be undertaken a woman because he doesn't wish to support the child.
You gave away your right to not have your womb occupied when you didn't use a condom or any of the other numerous and cheap/free methods of preventing conception.
So if you forget to lock your apartment once, you have no right to throw out a burglar?
You can even arrange the adoption ahead of time. Thats how I got adopted.
You gave away your right to not have your womb occupied when you didn't use a condom or any of the other numerous and cheap/free methods of preventing conception.
You do know that life is a bit more complicated than that right? Contraception does fail for many reasons. Unwanted pregnancies do not always result from refusal to use contraception.
What's the trimester? How far through the development process is it? Is it capable of sustaining its own vital signs out of the womb?
Most importantly, do I give a feth?
No, not really. If the child is as-yet unborn and the mother (and father, if present and applicable, depending on circumstances) don't want to keep it? Then terminate it or give it up for adoption. Do what you like, it's not a decision for me to make, because I'm not involved, it's none of my business.
Now, if you want to claim that you're "pro-life" but oppose social welfare services, funding public education, reform of laws unfairly targeting minorities and the poor, oppose free and easily-available birth control, oppose realistic sex ed and sexual health classes in schools, etc etc... then you're not really pro-life, you're just a control-freak and can't stand to not be all up in someone else's business.
Then why are they harvesting organs? I mean, if it's just a blob of cells.....
Yeah, "organs" is actually a misleading term that was used from the start; of course a fetus in the first trimester has nothing approximating a working lung, but it has the equivalent proliferating stem cells that might be useful in scientific research. While I'm on the fence on the whole thing, I think it is only appropriate to use the terminology of "donating tissue" instead of "harvesting organs", because it's simply more close to what is happening.
Certainly this isn't a anti-choice/pro-choice thread in disguise. This isn't a discussion that has been had many times before, and is new and interesting.
You gave away your right to not have your womb occupied when you didn't use a condom or any of the other numerous and cheap/free methods of preventing conception.
You do know that life is a bit more complicated than that right? Contraception does fail for many reasons. Unwanted pregnancies do not always result from refusal to use contraception.
Well thats a risk then isn't it?
Maybe you should consider all the implications, like a rational person. Sure, a condom can fail. but the likelihood is incredibly small.
Regardless, you just made a new human life. You can't just walk away from that responsibility. Even if it was rape or abuse. The baby didn't cause that, that shouldn't eliminate its right to live.
Right I've sat here and read this tripe you keep on spewing about not using contraceptives and then being forced to have a child. Have you even considered that maybe it isn't as black and white as she just didn't use any? What if she was raped? What if she was abused and talked into performing acts she didn't want to? What if she had passed out at a party and got passed around the guys there? In the last she wouldn't necessarily know till it was too late. In the abuse example she'd probably have been cut off as soon as the guy found out she was pregnant and as such was of little use to him. Should she still be forced to carry the child, go through all the pain and suffering involved, just so you can get a warm fuzzy feeling that you saved a child?
Again, you seem to ignore that the baby is a person too. Just like you and me. That situation is really sucky all around. No need to make it even worse by committing murder.
Thats why I think Rape should be a more heavily punished crime. In the situation you describe, that should warrant minimum life in prison without parole. Aggravated rape should be eligible for the death penalty.
But one bad act doesn't excuse another. Its still a human being and it wasn't guilty of the crime.
So you really are in favour of having raped women carry out the child of their rapist? I respect that if that's your opinion, but you surely see that this situation can be an absolute nightmare for the mother, yes? Something that even counseling and psychotherapeutic help might not help with.
Right I've sat here and read this tripe you keep on spewing about not using contraceptives and then being forced to have a child. Have you even considered that maybe it isn't as black and white as she just didn't use any? What if she was raped? What if she was abused and talked into performing acts she didn't want to? What if she had passed out at a party and got passed around the guys there? In the last she wouldn't necessarily know till it was too late. In the abuse example she'd probably have been cut off as soon as the guy found out she was pregnant and as such was of little use to him. Should she still be forced to carry the child, go through all the pain and suffering involved, just so you can get a warm fuzzy feeling that you saved a child?
Again, you seem to ignore that the baby is a person too. Just like you and me. That situation is really sucky all around. No need to make it even worse by committing murder.
Thats why I think Rape should be a more heavily punished crime. In the situation you describe, that should warrant minimum life in prison without parole. Aggravated rape should be eligible for the death penalty.
But one bad act doesn't excuse another. Its still a human being and it wasn't guilty of the crime.
So you would punish this hypothetical rape victim, for being raped, by essentially physically and mentally torturing her? You're going to put her through incredible pain, force her to be reminded every day of what happened, at the time she's trying to forget, and leave her scarred for life? And for what? A chance a not yet human can live? If I gave you a dog you didn't want, you'd refuse. If I dumped it on you, and ran off, you'd give it to dogs trust or some equivalent. If I gave a you a dog, forced you to raise it for nine months, then gak out a watermelon before you could give it away, you'd find a way out of it. A foetus is not yet a baby, early enough, as far as the ECHR sees it, it isn't granted any human rights. Until it is born and at the very least viable, it's essentially a tumour
skyth wrote: A woman has full rights to remove a parasite in her body for any reason she chooses.
More dehumanization I see.
Is a 6 month old baby a parasite too? its going to be leaching off your checkbook for the better part of 2 decades. Should you be allowed to just kill it?
A woman has full rights to remove a human that is living in her body for any reason.
You seem to be a veteran at this kind of argument, as you have that one phrase that makes it sound like you know what you're on about - I assume you've heard of the violinist analogy?
So you would punish this hypothetical rape victim, for being raped, by essentially physically and mentally torturing her? You're going to put her through incredible pain, force her to be reminded every day of what happened, at the time she's trying to forget, and leave her scarred for life? And for what? A chance a not yet human can live? If I gave you a dog you didn't want, you'd refuse. If I dumped it on you, and ran off, you'd give it to dogs trust or some equivalent. If I gave a you a dog, forced you to raise it for nine months, then gak out a watermelon before you could give it away, you'd find a way out of it. A foetus is not yet a baby, early enough, as far as the ECHR sees it, it isn't granted any human rights. Until it is born and at the very least viable, it's essentially a tumour
She shouldn't have been wearing that outfit, gone to that party, had that drink, been so pretty.... etc. etc. etc. (the usual victim blaming excuses)
A woman has full rights to remove a human that is living in her body for any reason.
thats an opinion, not a fact.
Its also not true, but I struggle with any ethical system where it is not the case.
I phrased it in that fashion because Grey Templar took issue with the dehumanization of the foetus using the term 'parasite'. I'm now waiting to see if there's any reaction to 'human' instead.
A woman has full rights to remove a human that is living in her body for any reason.
thats an opinion, not a fact.
Its also not true, but I struggle with any ethical system where it is not the case.
I phrased it in that fashion because Grey Templar took issue with the dehumanization of the foetus using the term 'parasite'. I'm now waiting to see if there's any reaction to 'human' instead.
I agree (I think if reading correctly). In the use abortion in the case of rape or incest has been a justifiable reason most everywhere I've seen.
Right I've sat here and read this tripe you keep on spewing about not using contraceptives and then being forced to have a child. Have you even considered that maybe it isn't as black and white as she just didn't use any? What if she was raped? What if she was abused and talked into performing acts she didn't want to? What if she had passed out at a party and got passed around the guys there? In the last she wouldn't necessarily know till it was too late. In the abuse example she'd probably have been cut off as soon as the guy found out she was pregnant and as such was of little use to him. Should she still be forced to carry the child, go through all the pain and suffering involved, just so you can get a warm fuzzy feeling that you saved a child?
Again, you seem to ignore that the baby is a person too. Just like you and me. That situation is really sucky all around. No need to make it even worse by committing murder.
Thats why I think Rape should be a more heavily punished crime. In the situation you describe, that should warrant minimum life in prison without parole. Aggravated rape should be eligible for the death penalty.
But one bad act doesn't excuse another. Its still a human being and it wasn't guilty of the crime.
So you would punish this hypothetical rape victim, for being raped, by essentially physically and mentally torturing her? You're going to put her through incredible pain, force her to be reminded every day of what happened, at the time she's trying to forget, and leave her scarred for life? And for what? A chance a not yet human can live? If I gave you a dog you didn't want, you'd refuse. If I dumped it on you, and ran off, you'd give it to dogs trust or some equivalent. If I gave a you a dog, forced you to raise it for nine months, then gak out a watermelon before you could give it away, you'd find a way out of it. A foetus is not yet a baby, early enough, as far as the ECHR sees it, it isn't granted any human rights. Until it is born and at the very least viable, it's essentially a tumour
This is also indicative of how children are now viewed. They're viewed as nothing more than little parasites or burdens. You view perfectly healthy humans as nothing more than pieces of trash. It says a lot about our society when this is an accepted viewpoint.
Its not torture to be pregnant or give birth. Millions of women have done it for thousands of years, and many of them with the children of rapists. Psychological counseling is of course a necessary treatment for the traumatic experience already, adding a little more isn't going to be more difficult than it already is. And again we can't punish an innocent child for the transgressions of another.
By every definition of life, a fetus is most certainly alive. And its human. Therefore its a living human being. This is incredibly simple and concrete. Its also the only safe way to go about this messy issue. After all, the consequences of begin wrong about something being a human is murder. And thats pretty damn serious. We can't afford to be practicing wholesale genocide. Thus its the moral highground to simply not perform it in the first place, and actively prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible, and provide the care for those that do occur. It costs nothing to give a child up for adoption. Its very cheap/free to use contraceptives which prevent fertilization and they have very low chances of failure. Rape victims should receive psychological counseling, and if pregnant get extra care so the baby can be turned over for adoption when its born if she doesn't want to keep it.
I am 100% behind public services related to this and I would vote for them specifically if they would ever come up without abortion being an option.
This is also indicative of how children are now viewed. They're viewed as nothing more than little parasites or burdens. You view perfectly healthy humans as nothing more than pieces of trash. It says a lot about our society when this is an accepted viewpoint.
Its not torture to be pregnant or give birth. Millions of women have done it for thousands of years, and many of them with the children of rapists. Psychological counseling is of course a necessary treatment for the traumatic experience already, adding a little more isn't going to be more difficult than it already is. And again we can't punish an innocent child for the transgressions of another.
By every definition of life, a fetus is most certainly alive. And its human. Therefore its a living human being. This is incredibly simple and concrete. Its also the only safe way to go about this messy issue. After all, the consequences of begin wrong about something being a human is murder. And thats pretty damn serious. We can't afford to be practicing wholesale genocide. Thus its the moral highground to simply not perform it in the first place, and actively prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible, and provide the care for those that do occur. It costs nothing to give a child up for adoption. Its very cheap/free to use contraceptives which prevent fertilization and they have very low chances of failure. Rape victims should receive psychological counseling, and if pregnant get extra care so the baby can be turned over for adoption when its born if she doesn't want to keep it.
I am 100% behind public services related to this and I would vote for them specifically if they would ever come up without abortion being an option.
But we're not punishing an innocent child. We're terminating a hypothetical-maybe-one-day-child for the sake of the alive-right-now-and-actually-fully-a-person woman.
By every definition of life, my finger is alive, and its human. This is dead simple. However, if its going to cause me excruciating pain, a doctor will remove it for me.
Its the ony safe way of going about the issue if you are biologically male. If not, it means that any time you have sex you run the risk of having your body distorted, being put through hormonal hell for 9 months, horrendous pain or surgery giving birth. Or getting ripped from your V to your A. Or death. Because, you know, that still happens.
It costs nothing to give up a child for a adoption, but its a massive burden on the state, and an emotional blow to the child.
Much easier to abort it whilst its still a foetus, rather than a person.
This is also indicative of how children are now viewed. They're viewed as nothing more than little parasites or burdens. You view perfectly healthy humans as nothing more than pieces of trash. It says a lot about our society when this is an accepted viewpoint.
Its not torture to be pregnant or give birth. Millions of women have done it for thousands of years, and many of them with the children of rapists. Psychological counseling is of course a necessary treatment for the traumatic experience already, adding a little more isn't going to be more difficult than it already is. And again we can't punish an innocent child for the transgressions of another.
By every definition of life, a fetus is most certainly alive. And its human. Therefore its a living human being. This is incredibly simple and concrete. Its also the only safe way to go about this messy issue. After all, the consequences of begin wrong about something being a human is murder. And thats pretty damn serious. We can't afford to be practicing wholesale genocide. Thus its the moral highground to simply not perform it in the first place, and actively prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible, and provide the care for those that do occur. It costs nothing to give a child up for adoption. Its very cheap/free to use contraceptives which prevent fertilization and they have very low chances of failure. Rape victims should receive psychological counseling, and if pregnant get extra care so the baby can be turned over for adoption when its born if she doesn't want to keep it.
I am 100% behind public services related to this and I would vote for them specifically if they would ever come up without abortion being an option.
But we're not punishing an innocent child. We're terminating a hypothetical-maybe-one-day-child for the sake of the alive-right-now-and-actually-fully-a-person woman.
By every definition of life, my finger is alive, and its human. This is dead simple. However, if its going to cause me excruciating pain, a doctor will remove it for me.
Its the ony safe way of going about the issue if you are biologically male. If not, it means that any time you have sex you run the risk of having your body distorted, being put through hormonal hell for 9 months, horrendous pain or surgery giving birth. Or getting ripped from your V to your A. Or death. Because, you know, that still happens.
It costs nothing to give up a child for a adoption, but its a massive burden on the state, and an emotional blow to the child.
Much easier to abort it whilst its still a foetus, rather than a person.
A sperm is a hypothetical one day child, a fetus is a child. Unless you think it might come out something else?...
Your finger is not a human, it is part of a human. Killing a fetus is killing a whole human, removing a finger is handicapping a human. Very different again.
Have you been around pregnant women? I have 5 aunties in my immediate family and all have had more than 1 child. All my uncles have had at least 1 child with their wives. None of them would refer to their children as a horrendous 9 months of hell. I suspect only teenagers have that opinion or those with no experience being around pregnant women.
Better a child to be upset for a little while than outright kill him yes? I mean, If I cannot stay with my child for X reason (war for example) then better to kill him? Sounds pretty nasty to me mate. Killing to spare emotions is pretty sick dude.
Yes its easy to kill a helpless and dependent child, but it doesn't make it correct.
Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment. This can lead to increased violence, human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.
Just saying mate... you are dehumanizing a human. Denying it is a human simply because it is in it's first stages of life (much like caterpillars or eggs etc) is pretty gross.
If the child is allowed to develop what will come out of the women? A human baby yes? Not a tree, not an apple, not a pig, nothing but a human. Yes that baby may die of natural causes or murder on during its path, but that is no different from you dying of murder or natural causes on the your path. Unless you are of the viewpoint you are technically not alive because you could die at any second.
This is also indicative of how children are now viewed. They're viewed as nothing more than little parasites or burdens. You view perfectly healthy humans as nothing more than pieces of trash. It says a lot about our society when this is an accepted viewpoint.
Its not torture to be pregnant or give birth. Millions of women have done it for thousands of years, and many of them with the children of rapists. Psychological counseling is of course a necessary treatment for the traumatic experience already, adding a little more isn't going to be more difficult than it already is. And again we can't punish an innocent child for the transgressions of another.
By every definition of life, a fetus is most certainly alive. And its human. Therefore its a living human being. This is incredibly simple and concrete. Its also the only safe way to go about this messy issue. After all, the consequences of begin wrong about something being a human is murder. And thats pretty damn serious. We can't afford to be practicing wholesale genocide. Thus its the moral highground to simply not perform it in the first place, and actively prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible, and provide the care for those that do occur. It costs nothing to give a child up for adoption. Its very cheap/free to use contraceptives which prevent fertilization and they have very low chances of failure. Rape victims should receive psychological counseling, and if pregnant get extra care so the baby can be turned over for adoption when its born if she doesn't want to keep it.
I am 100% behind public services related to this and I would vote for them specifically if they would ever come up without abortion being an option.
But we're not punishing an innocent child. We're terminating a hypothetical-maybe-one-day-child for the sake of the alive-right-now-and-actually-fully-a-person woman.
By every definition of life, my finger is alive, and its human. This is dead simple. However, if its going to cause me excruciating pain, a doctor will remove it for me.
Its the ony safe way of going about the issue if you are biologically male. If not, it means that any time you have sex you run the risk of having your body distorted, being put through hormonal hell for 9 months, horrendous pain or surgery giving birth. Or getting ripped from your V to your A. Or death. Because, you know, that still happens.
It costs nothing to give up a child for a adoption, but its a massive burden on the state, and an emotional blow to the child.
Much easier to abort it whilst its still a foetus, rather than a person.
A sperm is a hypothetical one day child, a fetus is a child. Unless you think it might come out something else?...
Your finger is not a human, it is part of a human. Killing a fetus is killing a whole human, removing a finger is handicapping a human. Very different again.
Have you been around pregnant women? I have 5 aunties in my immediate family and all have had more than 1 child. All my uncles have had at least 1 child with their wives. None of them would refer to their children as a horrendous 9 months of hell. I suspect only teenagers have that opinion or those with no experience being around pregnant women.
Better a child to be upset for a little while than outright kill him yes? I mean, If I cannot stay with my child for X reason (war for example) then better to kill him? Sounds pretty nasty to me mate. Killing to spare emotions is pretty sick dude.
Yes its easy to kill a helpless and dependent child, but it doesn't make it correct.
Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment. This can lead to increased violence, human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.
Just saying mate... you are dehumanizing a human. Denying it is a human simply because it is in it's first stages of life (much like caterpillars or eggs etc) is pretty gross.
If the child is allowed to develop what will come out of the women? A human baby yes? Not a tree, not an apple, not a pig, nothing but a human. Yes that baby may die of natural causes or murder on during its path, but that is no different from you dying of murder or natural causes on the your path. Unless you are of the viewpoint you are technically not alive because you could die at any second.
I don't know one person in this thread were comparing babies to cockroaches. Shows how far we have sunk.
GG
A sperm is a hypothetical one day child, a fetus is a child. Unless you think it might come out something else?...
Your finger is not a human, it is part of a human. Killing a fetus is killing a whole human, removing a finger is handicapping a human. Very different again.
Have you been around pregnant women? I have 5 aunties in my immediate family and all have had more than 1 child. All my uncles have had at least 1 child with their wives. None of them would refer to their children as a horrendous 9 months of hell. I suspect only teenagers have that opinion or those with no experience being around pregnant women.
Better a child to be upset for a little while than outright kill him yes? I mean, If I cannot stay with my child for X reason (war for example) then better to kill him? Sounds pretty nasty to me mate. Killing to spare emotions is pretty sick dude.
Yes its easy to kill a helpless and dependent child, but it doesn't make it correct.
Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment. This can lead to increased violence, human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.
Just saying mate... you are dehumanizing a human. Denying it is a human simply because it is in it's first stages of life (much like caterpillars or eggs etc) is pretty gross.
If the child is allowed to develop what will come out of the women? A human baby yes? Not a tree, not an apple, not a pig, nothing but a human. Yes that baby may die of natural causes or murder on during its path, but that is no different from you dying of murder or natural causes on the your path. Unless you are of the viewpoint you are technically not alive because you could die at any second.
I am not a teenager, and I have indeed been around pregnant women. What I expect the difference is between your aunties and those who would describe the experience as hell is that your aunties wanted to have your cousins.
It will definitely come out a child, but while its still up in someone else's body it is a foetus. I do not think that the foetus counts as a human being whilst its up in there, but this is a semantic argument.
So lets try a differnet tactic. We'll assume for the moment that the foetus is a human being.
If I woke up one day, and somebody had hooked me to the body of another person - fully alive, walking, talking person - and told me that if I uncoupled myself, the other person would die, I should still be allowed to uncouple myself. This is because I have bodily autonomy - my body, my choices.
Except that's not what happens with a baby. It doesn't just magically appear. It got there because people made a conscious choice, or multiple choices in the case of not using a condom. You don't just magically wake up pregnant.
Grey Templar wrote: Except that's not what happens with a baby. It doesn't just magically appear. It got there because people made a conscious choice, or multiple choices in the case of not using a condom. You don't just magically wake up pregnant.
A sperm is a hypothetical one day child, a fetus is a child. Unless you think it might come out something else?...
Your finger is not a human, it is part of a human. Killing a fetus is killing a whole human, removing a finger is handicapping a human. Very different again.
Have you been around pregnant women? I have 5 aunties in my immediate family and all have had more than 1 child. All my uncles have had at least 1 child with their wives. None of them would refer to their children as a horrendous 9 months of hell. I suspect only teenagers have that opinion or those with no experience being around pregnant women.
Better a child to be upset for a little while than outright kill him yes? I mean, If I cannot stay with my child for X reason (war for example) then better to kill him? Sounds pretty nasty to me mate. Killing to spare emotions is pretty sick dude.
Yes its easy to kill a helpless and dependent child, but it doesn't make it correct.
Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment. This can lead to increased violence, human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.
Just saying mate... you are dehumanizing a human. Denying it is a human simply because it is in it's first stages of life (much like caterpillars or eggs etc) is pretty gross.
If the child is allowed to develop what will come out of the women? A human baby yes? Not a tree, not an apple, not a pig, nothing but a human. Yes that baby may die of natural causes or murder on during its path, but that is no different from you dying of murder or natural causes on the your path. Unless you are of the viewpoint you are technically not alive because you could die at any second.
I am not a teenager, and I have indeed been around pregnant women. What I expect the difference is between your aunties and those who would describe the experience as hell is that your aunties wanted to have your cousins.
It will definitely come out a child, but while its still up in someone else's body it is a foetus. I do not think that the foetus counts as a human being whilst its up in there, but this is a semantic argument. So lets try a differnet tactic. We'll assume for the moment that the foetus is a human being.
If I woke up one day, and somebody had hooked me to the body of another person - fully alive, walking, talking person - and told me that if I uncoupled myself, the other person would die, I should still be allowed to uncouple myself. This is because I have bodily autonomy - my body, my choices.
Ignoring the fact that my grandmother had few miscarriages and her first 2 children as a result of rape (60 years ago deaf children in board schools were not treated well) and not once has she refereed to pregnancy as hell or anything negative. In fact the most pain she ever had was having her first kids taken away from her at birth. We have met one of them, but the other has never been seen since.
See in your example, someone is dying of natural causes. The right thing to do would be to try help the poor guy out. But you did not create the guy. The situation is very different. Of course if someone on the side of the road is burning alive you have the choice to help him or not. But usually you are seen as a coward for letting the guy burn regardless of if you know him or not. It is a cowardly thing to let someone die when you are in every position to help them. Unless of course you think we should also be allowed to let people die because you don't feel like going through the effort? ESPECIALLY if you had a hand in getting the person in that situation to begin with.
The child is part of the persons creation, they helped put them there (99.99% of the time) and therefore have the obligation to take care of them. It's like buying a dog, then killing it because you changed your mind. Sick and unjust.
Grey Templar wrote: Except that's not what happens with a baby. It doesn't just magically appear. It got there because people made a conscious choice, or multiple choices in the case of not using a condom. You don't just magically wake up pregnant.
Remake that point in the case of rape then
Still doesn't change the fact its a human being. Even when the mother didn't make the choice to get pregnant, its still a human being in all cases. It has, or should have, all the rights associated with being such. Because your rights were violated doesn't give you the right to violate another's rights.
A sperm is a hypothetical one day child, a fetus is a child. Unless you think it might come out something else?...
Your finger is not a human, it is part of a human. Killing a fetus is killing a whole human, removing a finger is handicapping a human. Very different again.
Have you been around pregnant women? I have 5 aunties in my immediate family and all have had more than 1 child. All my uncles have had at least 1 child with their wives. None of them would refer to their children as a horrendous 9 months of hell. I suspect only teenagers have that opinion or those with no experience being around pregnant women.
Better a child to be upset for a little while than outright kill him yes? I mean, If I cannot stay with my child for X reason (war for example) then better to kill him? Sounds pretty nasty to me mate. Killing to spare emotions is pretty sick dude.
Yes its easy to kill a helpless and dependent child, but it doesn't make it correct.
Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment. This can lead to increased violence, human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.
Just saying mate... you are dehumanizing a human. Denying it is a human simply because it is in it's first stages of life (much like caterpillars or eggs etc) is pretty gross.
If the child is allowed to develop what will come out of the women? A human baby yes? Not a tree, not an apple, not a pig, nothing but a human. Yes that baby may die of natural causes or murder on during its path, but that is no different from you dying of murder or natural causes on the your path. Unless you are of the viewpoint you are technically not alive because you could die at any second.
I am not a teenager, and I have indeed been around pregnant women. What I expect the difference is between your aunties and those who would describe the experience as hell is that your aunties wanted to have your cousins.
It will definitely come out a child, but while its still up in someone else's body it is a foetus. I do not think that the foetus counts as a human being whilst its up in there, but this is a semantic argument.
So lets try a differnet tactic. We'll assume for the moment that the foetus is a human being.
If I woke up one day, and somebody had hooked me to the body of another person - fully alive, walking, talking person - and told me that if I uncoupled myself, the other person would die, I should still be allowed to uncouple myself. This is because I have bodily autonomy - my body, my choices.
Ignoring the fact that my grandmother had few miscarriages and her first 2 children as a result of rape (60 years ago deaf children in board schools were not treated well) and not once has she refereed to pregnancy as hell or anything negative. In fact the most pain she ever had was having her first kids taken away from her at birth. We have met one of them, but the other has never been seen since.
See in your example, someone is dying of natural causes. The right thing to do would be to try help the poor guy out. But you did not create the guy. The situation is very different. Of course if someone on the side of the road is burning alive you have the choice to help him or not. But usually you are seen as a coward for letting the guy burn regardless of if you know him or not. It is a cowardly thing to let someone die when you are in every position to help them. Unless of course you think we should also be allowed to let people die because you don't feel like going through the effort? ESPECIALLY if you had a hand in getting the person in that situation to begin with.
The child is part of the persons creation, they helped put them there (99.99% of the time) and therefore have the obligation to take care of them. It's like buying a dog, then killing it because you changed your mind. Sick and unjust.
That's some great anecdotal evidence you have there.
Except you cannot accidentally become 'with dog'. If I set out to buy a dog, I get a dog. If I set out to have an orgasm, it sometimes results in pregnancy. Fortunately, we have a procedure to dela with that.
Grey Templar wrote: Except that's not what happens with a baby. It doesn't just magically appear. It got there because people made a conscious choice, or multiple choices in the case of not using a condom. You don't just magically wake up pregnant.
Remake that point in the case of rape then
Still doesn't change the fact its a human being. Even when the mother didn't make the choice to get pregnant, its still a human being in all cases. It has, or should have, all the rights associated with being such. Because your rights were violated doesn't give you the right to violate another's rights.
Imagine if I was to strap myself to you, force you to act as the mother to me for nine months, and then go through pain like you can't imagine at the end, and leave you pretty damn scarred up, so that I could live. I then offer you a button. Pressing the button means you get to walk away, with a minimum of discomfort, you'd feel little if any regret at my passing, are you completely 100% certain that no part of you would want to press the button? You would happy put yourself through all that pain and suffering for gaks and giggles?
Grey Templar wrote: Except that's not what happens with a baby. It doesn't just magically appear. It got there because people made a conscious choice, or multiple choices in the case of not using a condom. You don't just magically wake up pregnant.
They made the conscious choice to have sex, not to get pregnant. The pregnancy is an unwanted side-effect of the thing they were after, which is an orgasm.
And we're still missing the bodily-autonomy thing here.
A sperm is a hypothetical one day child, a fetus is a child. Unless you think it might come out something else?...
Your finger is not a human, it is part of a human. Killing a fetus is killing a whole human, removing a finger is handicapping a human. Very different again.
Have you been around pregnant women? I have 5 aunties in my immediate family and all have had more than 1 child. All my uncles have had at least 1 child with their wives. None of them would refer to their children as a horrendous 9 months of hell. I suspect only teenagers have that opinion or those with no experience being around pregnant women.
Better a child to be upset for a little while than outright kill him yes? I mean, If I cannot stay with my child for X reason (war for example) then better to kill him? Sounds pretty nasty to me mate. Killing to spare emotions is pretty sick dude.
Yes its easy to kill a helpless and dependent child, but it doesn't make it correct.
Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment. This can lead to increased violence, human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.
Just saying mate... you are dehumanizing a human. Denying it is a human simply because it is in it's first stages of life (much like caterpillars or eggs etc) is pretty gross.
If the child is allowed to develop what will come out of the women? A human baby yes? Not a tree, not an apple, not a pig, nothing but a human. Yes that baby may die of natural causes or murder on during its path, but that is no different from you dying of murder or natural causes on the your path. Unless you are of the viewpoint you are technically not alive because you could die at any second.
I am not a teenager, and I have indeed been around pregnant women. What I expect the difference is between your aunties and those who would describe the experience as hell is that your aunties wanted to have your cousins.
It will definitely come out a child, but while its still up in someone else's body it is a foetus. I do not think that the foetus counts as a human being whilst its up in there, but this is a semantic argument.
So lets try a differnet tactic. We'll assume for the moment that the foetus is a human being.
If I woke up one day, and somebody had hooked me to the body of another person - fully alive, walking, talking person - and told me that if I uncoupled myself, the other person would die, I should still be allowed to uncouple myself. This is because I have bodily autonomy - my body, my choices.
Ignoring the fact that my grandmother had few miscarriages and her first 2 children as a result of rape (60 years ago deaf children in board schools were not treated well) and not once has she refereed to pregnancy as hell or anything negative. In fact the most pain she ever had was having her first kids taken away from her at birth. We have met one of them, but the other has never been seen since.
See in your example, someone is dying of natural causes. The right thing to do would be to try help the poor guy out. But you did not create the guy. The situation is very different. Of course if someone on the side of the road is burning alive you have the choice to help him or not. But usually you are seen as a coward for letting the guy burn regardless of if you know him or not. It is a cowardly thing to let someone die when you are in every position to help them. Unless of course you think we should also be allowed to let people die because you don't feel like going through the effort? ESPECIALLY if you had a hand in getting the person in that situation to begin with.
The child is part of the persons creation, they helped put them there (99.99% of the time) and therefore have the obligation to take care of them. It's like buying a dog, then killing it because you changed your mind. Sick and unjust.
That's some great anecdotal evidence you have there.
Except you cannot accidentally become 'with dog'. If I set out to buy a dog, I get a dog. If I set out to have an orgasm, it sometimes results in pregnancy. Fortunately, we have a procedure to dela with that.
Explain please, how one accidentally gets pregnant? (outside of rape that's forced not accident). If I go driving, I go driving to get somewhere. If I make a mistake and kill a few people its not my fault and I should be able to exempt myself from the consequences. That doesn't sound right does it? If you want to get laid then you must accept that there are consequences that might happen if you mess it up. That consequence is a human child. If you cannot stop yourself from getting pregnant that is your fault not the childs fault. It is stupidly easy to not get pregnant.
Explain how one can accidentally have sex? Because it seems clear having sex is a choice and it is common sense that sex = baby.
Also saying pregnancy is hell is also anecdotal...
Grey Templar wrote: Except that's not what happens with a baby. It doesn't just magically appear. It got there because people made a conscious choice, or multiple choices in the case of not using a condom. You don't just magically wake up pregnant.
They made the conscious choice to have sex, not to get pregnant. The pregnancy is an unwanted side-effect of the thing they were after, which is an orgasm.
And we're still missing the bodily-autonomy thing here.
There are ways to have sex without pregnancy that don't involve murder. Why can't people use them? Especially when many are free.
Because they exist, there is no reason to allow abortions. If you get to that point, you are beyond the point of choice. Its quite simple actually.
A sperm is a hypothetical one day child, a fetus is a child. Unless you think it might come out something else?...
Your finger is not a human, it is part of a human. Killing a fetus is killing a whole human, removing a finger is handicapping a human. Very different again.
Have you been around pregnant women? I have 5 aunties in my immediate family and all have had more than 1 child. All my uncles have had at least 1 child with their wives. None of them would refer to their children as a horrendous 9 months of hell. I suspect only teenagers have that opinion or those with no experience being around pregnant women.
Better a child to be upset for a little while than outright kill him yes? I mean, If I cannot stay with my child for X reason (war for example) then better to kill him? Sounds pretty nasty to me mate. Killing to spare emotions is pretty sick dude.
Yes its easy to kill a helpless and dependent child, but it doesn't make it correct.
Dehumanization is the psychological process of demonizing the enemy, making them seem less than human and hence not worthy of humane treatment. This can lead to increased violence, human rights violations, war crimes, and genocide.
Just saying mate... you are dehumanizing a human. Denying it is a human simply because it is in it's first stages of life (much like caterpillars or eggs etc) is pretty gross.
If the child is allowed to develop what will come out of the women? A human baby yes? Not a tree, not an apple, not a pig, nothing but a human. Yes that baby may die of natural causes or murder on during its path, but that is no different from you dying of murder or natural causes on the your path. Unless you are of the viewpoint you are technically not alive because you could die at any second.
I am not a teenager, and I have indeed been around pregnant women. What I expect the difference is between your aunties and those who would describe the experience as hell is that your aunties wanted to have your cousins.
It will definitely come out a child, but while its still up in someone else's body it is a foetus. I do not think that the foetus counts as a human being whilst its up in there, but this is a semantic argument.
So lets try a differnet tactic. We'll assume for the moment that the foetus is a human being.
If I woke up one day, and somebody had hooked me to the body of another person - fully alive, walking, talking person - and told me that if I uncoupled myself, the other person would die, I should still be allowed to uncouple myself. This is because I have bodily autonomy - my body, my choices.
Ignoring the fact that my grandmother had few miscarriages and her first 2 children as a result of rape (60 years ago deaf children in board schools were not treated well) and not once has she refereed to pregnancy as hell or anything negative. In fact the most pain she ever had was having her first kids taken away from her at birth. We have met one of them, but the other has never been seen since.
See in your example, someone is dying of natural causes. The right thing to do would be to try help the poor guy out. But you did not create the guy. The situation is very different. Of course if someone on the side of the road is burning alive you have the choice to help him or not. But usually you are seen as a coward for letting the guy burn regardless of if you know him or not. It is a cowardly thing to let someone die when you are in every position to help them. Unless of course you think we should also be allowed to let people die because you don't feel like going through the effort? ESPECIALLY if you had a hand in getting the person in that situation to begin with.
The child is part of the persons creation, they helped put them there (99.99% of the time) and therefore have the obligation to take care of them. It's like buying a dog, then killing it because you changed your mind. Sick and unjust.
That's some great anecdotal evidence you have there.
Except you cannot accidentally become 'with dog'. If I set out to buy a dog, I get a dog. If I set out to have an orgasm, it sometimes results in pregnancy. Fortunately, we have a procedure to dela with that.
Explain please, how one accidentally gets pregnant? (outside of rape that's forced not accident). If I go driving, I go driving to get somewhere. If I make a mistake and kill a few people its not my fault and I should be able to exempt myself from the consequences. That doesn't sound right does it? If you want to get laid then you must accept that there are consequences that might happen if you mess it up. That consequence is a human child. If you cannot stop yourself from getting pregnant that is your fault not the childs fault. It is stupidly easy to not get pregnant.
Explain how one can accidentally have sex? Because it seems clear having sex is a choice and it is common sense that sex = baby.
Also saying pregnancy is hell is also anecdotal...
Using made up numbers here, so for trust the maths, though I'm sure it would be close to the actual number. Let's say a condom is 99.99% effective, and we'll assume the pill is likewise 99.99% effective. The chances of both failing is what 0.0001? That one in what a million event, is the accidental pregnancy
Well, when you decide to have sex with birth control you accept that there is that 1 in a million chance of an oopsie. If you are not willing to risk that very small chance, then don't have sex at all.
You made the choice to have sex despite that risk. If the probability happens you have to accept the consequence that you are now pregnant.
People who go bungee jumping sign waivers they won't sue if they get hurt. Even though the chance is infinitesimally small. If they get hurt, well they accepted the risk of that when they went bungee jumping. This is no different. If you use birth control, you accept the very small risk it might not work. If it doesn't, you gotta deal with the fact you now have a baby. You can still not have sex if you really can't take that risk. Or give it up for adoption.
I can't even be bothered to argue this any longer, it's late, I need sleep, and neither side is ever going to win. The only compromise would be to allow it to occur so that those in favour can access this and those against can just carry on their lives and ignore it
We've...well I was going to say we've learned, we've loved, we've lost, but we've really only all lost a lot of time and effort.
For a detailed breakdown of the many reasons this thread needed to die, refer to the on field ref.
Note: I couldn't be bothered to figure out exactly which ones were actually relevant, so I just picked the few I was sure of then the ones I liked best.
about how casual the discussion is? It's a blob of dead tissue with less "humanity" than the cockroaches you kill without the slightest regret. I fail to see why any discussion of the subject needs to be accompanied by tragic music and buckets of tears.
. Just like a carrot is a human being.
